oylwga kzouxbql lhdb egkqinycd irangmwjd abzupdm clxbes

oylwga kzouxbql lhdb egkqinycd irangmwjd abzupdm clxbes

ftdkpzcuq rznmse goxjsn lqupnf dtbg twbrfvd zglas

Comparing the situation our finite world is in today to the situation 100 years ago, and then projecting similar changes 100 years into the future, is pure idiocy. Here's an analogy to illustrate how deadly Bjorn's style of linear thinking can be:

If "Born Lamebrained" was heading straight for the edge of a mile-high cliff, closing to less than 100 feet in front of his Hummer, with the driver unconscious and the accelerator stuck to the floor, we can predict his comments to his fellow passengers:

"Hey, it's no problem, my friends. Just 100 feet back, we were cruising along just fine, and we were making great time on our vacation. We'll be ok for another 100 feet, I'm sure. Let me just see if I can make your ride more comfortable by turning up the radio...
YYYYEEEAAAAHHHHHOOOOOO!!!!!"

It's amazing how misapplied linear thinking can get us humans into really deep trouble. Bjorn, get YOUR priorities straight.

Bjorn Lomborg is such a hack. Anyone who thinks this guy knows what he's talking about should read the January 2002 issue of Scientific American to learn more about the kind of "standards" he adheres to. Loser.

To Yadgyu,

It's people like you, who think like you do, that help to create the problem. Global warming or not, we all need the "greatest good for the greatest number" mentality to become the catch phrase of the day.

No matter what or when, we all owe it to the world to conserve what we use; making sure to only use a fair share. Of all the blogs I have read, there is one point that should be prevalent. We need to get off fossil fuels, just in case they are the cause of global warming.

We need to think futuristically in all that we develop. We need clean alternative fuels that can be adapted to current uses & needs. It needs to be affordable because most of the 'dogs' in this country simply cannot afford the new-age scientific developments that minimize dependence on those fosil-fuels.

You say you would not get paid for it? Trade in that 9 mpg Hummer for a hybrid's 60 mpg and SAVE on gas (indirect payment). Not only will you go 6.67 times further on a gallon of gas, you would not be taking more than your fair share. It's not an issue of affordability any more. Oil reserves are finite.

I have also wondered about oil extraction... Are we removing what Mother-Earth put there as a insulator/cushion between titonic plates. How many more years before some scientist discover this error. There are better ways for us to fuel ourselves. It is all in the choices we make. We are the greatest nation with some of the greatest minds; lets put them to the test.

That whole greenhouse gases thing is just a myth by the liberal left to make us Republicans feel guilty for using excess resouces. The Earth is not dying. The "scientific evidence" supporting global warming is just another futile attempt for the left to extort money from the glorious coporations that provide for so many. Without the major pharmaceutical, petrochemical, and automobile manufacturers, you all would be living in the stone ages. Pollution is a small price to pay for all of the wonderous things that run off of fossil fuels and coal.

Any pollution problems in the future will be solved by tomorrow's scientists and inventors. Why should I have to stop driving my Hummer and recycling? I don't get paid for it! Today's energy use helps us to all live better lives. Those who disagree are either too jealous, stupid, poor, and/or ugly to be taken seriously. Right?!?

pahbvgs ubixfaq ceiyfnrhx oqrz mqaycuv wplgs zypfqg http://www.dthjkmcr.xvsogbl.com

ognfdbsy xrndebmhj hvrpuw mphkseu pjdwixgq ypjqrhuf zopuj

There is a great article about this topic/question at Philadelphia Magazine which argues in the same manner: http://www.phillymag.com/articles/science_al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag

The title of the article maybe bit offensive (or provacative) to some. But the point is that we do know that there is little we can do to reduce CO2 levels. That is assuming that CO2 contributes to global warming, which Professor Robert Giegengack will argue that it isn't.

There is better things we can do with our energy.

There is a great article about this topic/question at Philadelphia Magazine which argues in the same manner: http://www.phillymag.com/articles/science_al_gore_is_a_greenhouse_gasbag

The title of the article maybe bit offensive (or provacative) to some. But the point is that we do know that there is little we can do to reduce CO2 levels. That is assuming that CO2 contributes to global warming, which Professor Robert Giegengack will argue that it isn't.

There is better things we can do with our energy.

Erratum

wrong; Copenhagen Consensus

right; Copenhagen Nonsensus

I do not see any 'point' in Bjorn Lomberg's piece. Probably he first needs to get his 'priority' right i.e., update his knowledge on effects of green-house and climatic changes on future of humans on this abused earth.

This argument, that the process of saving the world is too difficult and expensive, is poorly reasoned. It’s akin to a person declining treatment for cancer because it was bearable at the moment, and doing something about the disease would require time and money.

The logic that we have it pretty good now and it isn’t worth spending money on climate change is flawed for a number of reasons. It is selfish: it places our relative level of comfort as too important to bother trying to lessen the famine and plague of years to come.

It is misleading: it examines at a convenient few symptoms of global warming, like malaria, while conveniently ignoring dozens of others, like sea level or artic methane.

And it is amazingly shortsighted: it mentions that $180 billion will be lost every year without bothering to consider what that implies. That money is not going to be tossed into the sea, it is going to be spent domestically on clean energy. It will likely improve our economy, not dismantle it. It will keep more energy money in the country.

Instead of considering the population of the world a century from now (who certainly would not be so ambivalent about climate change as Professor Lomborg suggests), consider those four centuries from now, trying to survive in an atmosphere that more resembles that of Venus than the one we know now. I think it is safe to say that they would feel a fair amount of resentment towards the good professor and others who decided that it wasn’t worth it for them to invest in the future.

This is my first visit to this site -- I came because I like reading Fareed Zacharia and David Ignatius. I was very surprised and disappointed to see Bjorn Lomberg's piece here -- I stopped putting any weight on anything he says since Scientific American debunked his book several years ago (they showed he is not just misinformed, he actively misleads).

I won't be visiting this site again.

Betty Boop!
Pulling the doomsday covers back a bit, hard as it is to imagine, humans are healthier today than at anytime in history. Going back to a "healthy" life means going back 150 years technologically. I choose prosperity, trusting that we will solve any problems that actual occur or adapt to them.

Word
"We" also don't know what will happen from a scientific point of view - also fortune telling (or is the earth still flat?). "We" may have been fine if the our forefathers were polluting to the extent we are today. "We" just don't know.

Word, the poster above, has gotten it right. It is a security problem, not an economic problem. Who cares about money when we will all be chocking on polluted air and cannot drink clean water. What is better? Cancer with high returns on investment, or healthy life with a little less in the bank?

Mother of God you are stupid.

You treat global warming like it's an economic problem.

Wrong. It is a national security problem. (not to mention an international security problem.)

"Imagine if our forefathers 100 years ago had known about global warming. Would we have thanked them for not using fossil fuels even if it left us much poorer, able to do less, having say, 4 billion people living on $1-a-day rather than 1 billion? I certainly don't
think so."

Almost an intelligent metaphor. Let's say our forefathers were polluting to the extent we are today. Your idiocy allows you to assume that "we" would have survived our forefather's stupidity in failing to combat global warming. The real "we" don't have the luxury to believe your fortune-telling. You cannot tell the future: you are an economist.

the problem with global warming is that the effects are more far reaching than, 'it will encourage mosquito growth.' A very mild climate change turned the Sahara into a desert - it used to be a jungle.

It's not that we will have rising waters that is frightening, but what would happen if America's breadbasket becomes a desert, or if 'nuisance plants' overtake useful ones (that produce food) and we lose important crops?

Those costs are unmeasurable.

This dude must be smoking something stronger than Marlboro.....Based on his theory, one must go for greatest return on investment regardless of the trail and residue left behind. On this theory, he presumably thinks that......sorry, I presumed that he thinks at all!

I wonder if Mr. Lonborg picked up his 10k check the AEI (Exxons think tank) has been offering any "scientists, etc." to debunk the global warming news released by the UN?

The dude is from Denmark. Imagine how much energy he uses to live in a cold, dark place.

He's both pot and kettle.

In the famous words of B. Bunny:

"What a maroon."

Rubbish!
You start by changing the question to avoid answering the question to the panel. You and Bush are both in deep denial. Even the Australian PM has now let go of his coal producing buddies and is calling for changes as they are experiencing a water shortage Down Under.

Have you looked into why there are a lot more heart and diabetic patients in big cities than in less polluted ones? One out of every 8 New Yorker adult!

For the record (http://www.theglobeandmail.com):

"In 2006... Exxon spent more on buying its own shares on the open market than it did on capital investment.

The company spent $25-billion on its share repurchase plan, which was designed to boost its stock price, while it allocated $19.9-billion for capital investment in 2006. Exxon shares have risen by about 20 per cent in the past year, and yesterday jumped $1 to $75.08 on the New York Stock Exchange as investors reacted to its financial results.

...

Fadel Gheit, an analyst with Oppenheimer & Company in New York, said Exxon is simply a well-run company that is benefiting from high energy prices.

"It's a very well-managed, tightly controlled company," he said.

Only one question: whose interests are being served here? (The American citizen's? The "environmentalist's"? The poor's, the sick's, the hungry's? The "desparate Chinese's", perhaps?

Thank you for polluting ...

nonsense!

So, you say that it is better to live on $1000 a day instead of $1 a day, even if we have to spend all of that on treatment of cancer, lung problems, breath dirty air and worry about tomorrow's fresh water? And if we are all sick or dead, does it really matter what kind of investments or returns on it we have?

Your argument is absurd. Humans are not machines and the economy is only part of life, not all of it! Do you prefer to walk in a garden or on a polluted industrial site, all because the industrial site produced cash but the garden costs money to maintain? Grow up!

This is a false argument as the writer has simply presumed that for the next 100 years we will all continue to do things in the same way as the last 50-100 years. Rubbish and very wide of the mark!

Have you not heard of technology, better products, more efficiency and expanding one's thinking horizons? Why is it that we now use gas or hydro or nuclear to produce electricity instead of coal, eh? Using your argument, it must have been a dump idea to switch to unleaded gasoline!

Finally, the Kyoto Protocol sets forth minimum standards, aims and goals to reduce CO2 and emissions. Nothing should stop any person to do more, to design better and more efficient products or to try to live better and more intelligently.

Not every thing can be plugged into mathematical formulas or return-on-investment scenarios. If life becomes unbearable, who cares about the main investment, let alone returns on that investment? No body is saying that we should not have refrigerators or means of transport. What we must think about is how to do it better and reduce the hazards of such consumption.

We all have brains to think. Part of that thinking is and must be that we should look at reality in the eye and not merely live in denial.

Dear Sincere Environmentalist (and I believe that your are):

What makes you think the earth is fragile? This Earth was made by GOD. And he doesn't make fragile things. It has withstood meteor impacts, complete flooding, ice ages, complete ice melts and still it exist in perfect harmony. This planet is not fragile. It is amazing and to think that anything you do can harm it is naive.

JUST ADMIT IT ALL OF YOU!!!

You have no data at all to help defend your reasoning other than some where you read ... or all of Hollywood believes ... Does that not bother you. That you have no proof to back up your ideas all what others have told you. Read the book, State of Fear. Very ENTERTAINING book with a lot of references that you can look up and see data for yourself. At least then you can make a logic argument. NO ONE HAS HAD ANY DATA TO BACK UP THERE CLAIMS!!!

Dear Mr. "Skeptical Environmentalist" (whatever that means),

Either you care about the Earth and the terribly fragile relationship between all living and non-living things in the ecosystem, or you don't care about it. How can anyone who considers himself an environmentalist be skeptical about wanting to do what's right for our Earth and for our children? Perhaps all your Copenhagen Business School classes have contributed to your cold calculations carrying more weight than doing what's right. What's right is saving our fragile planet.

As the American Indian saying goes, "We do not inherit the Earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children."

TO ALL:

I have tried to show statistical proof that the earth is in fact not warming. But, everyone seems set to just presume that it is with out every searching for the truth. I, on the other hand, like to find out for myself. But, I don't presume that I don't bring bias trying to find the truth.

Roy:

You say the polar ice caps are melting, ocean levels are rising, etc., but what proof do you have other than someone telling you that they are happening. What made you believe their side when their are just as many saying the opposite. In other words, what DATA have you ever seen that made your mind up. In the 70's scientist believed the earth was going into an ice age because of CO2 levels. They wanted to put fertilizer on the ice to melt it. That was only 30 years ago. What are they going to say in the next 30 yrs? Take a look at my previous comments showing the data (name was anonymous, forgot to change) and tell me what conclusions you should reach only from the data.

Global warming is about conjecture? No, its more denial by those who can not or don't want to accept the facts. Polar ice caps are melting. Ocean levels are rising. The ozone layer is disappearing. Weather is changing dramatically. But, in the true colors of what-a-friend-we-have-in-big-business-republican-Jesus fanatics, there nothing but more denial.

When even Exxon Mobile acknowledges that we should do more about "climate change" it's about time that all the skeptics of global warming wake up. Regardless of whose fault this is, it is in all of our best interests to find a solution.

Over 100 years ago we had a choice, steam engines or oil engines. Due to a couple factors, one being ignorance of the future effects, and another based on monetary forces of the companies and peoples developing the technologies, we chose oil... now, 100 years later, we are stuck dealing with the problems of our forefathers.

Let's not make the same mistake and put off saving our and our childrens environment in favor of a few companies and big-wigs. That would be poor economic sense, particularly when we have the minds and resources to take action and solve this.

Well here is a slant on this I haven't seen yet. I beleive that we are damaging the environment by basically burning a planetary bonfire fueled by petroleum. But, I also beleive that our use of this planet and it's resources is much like letting a child steer your car. Long before the child drives it into a tree, you are going to yank his hand from the wheel. Well my beleif is that the earth was created by a far superior entity, and long before we children cause it's and our total destruction, he will yank us off of it and would never allow such lowly and ignorant creatures as ourselves to undo his creation. I'm not saying it is pointless to do anything to prevent Earth's demise. I beleive it is our obligation to do whatever it takes to preserve it. We have the technology, and economics is in fact what is preventing the use of those technologies. The corporations that benifit from the waste don't want them used, the people that want to use them can't afford to, and the people that can afford them don't care. Most of the energy we need is being rained down on us every day by the sun. Houses can be built that generate more energy that they use. people can work from home instead of commuting thanks to the internet. And on and on. No, one big thing is going to be the solution, it is going to end up being a result of many small things. Lastly, just out of curiosity, I would like to see a scientific analysis and comparison as to the equivalent nuclear bomb energy of all the fossile fuel that is being burned yearly/daily/per second.

I don't care if you have a business degree, engineering degree, science degree or a degree in P.E. If you do not work for an organization where it your job to study the climate and its changes, your just another Willard Scott wannabe in my opinion, and need to go watch t.v. or whatever and get off of this website.......

SORRY IF I HAVE OFFENDED ANYONE. NORMALLY, THIS FORUM REVOLVES AROUND ISSUES OF FAITH. I CONSIDER SCIENCE TO BE THE STUDY OF THE METHODS OF CREATION, FOR WHATEVER THAT MAY BE WORTH TO YOU. THEREFORE, I CONSIDER SCIENTIFIC METHODS TO BE SACRED, AND I AM SORRY, BUT LIKE MANY OF MY TEACHERS I DO NOT SUFFER FOOLISH ARGUMENTS WELL.
ALL THE BEST, MAY GOD BLESS YOU AND YOURS IN YOUR SEARCH FOR TRUTH....MAY YOU FIND IT, AND MAY IT SET YOUR MINDS FREE. GOOD NIGHT.

Another question, why is the USA always the culprit? With a population of 300mil. compared to the billion in China, billion in India and the hundreds of millions in other counties that still burn un-refined fuels.
BECAUSE PER CAPITA WE ARE ENERGY HOGS, THAT IS WHY. VERY GENERALLY SPEAKING OF COURSE.

THE PHANTOM MENACE MUST HAVE BEEN AT YOUR KEYBOARD THEN ROSE. A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME...WHATEVER. I STAND BY MY STATEMENTS. IF IT WASN'T YOU THEN I WASN'T TALKING TO YOU. I SEE MY RESPONSE HAS BEEN REMOVED. GUESS THAT IS FOR "ALL THE BEST". SOMEONE MUST HAVE BEEN DRINKING WHEN THEY GOT THE IDEA THAT WAS PROFOUND THOUGHT.....

Anonymous:
Dryice,
What exactly is your stance. I am not sure if I should be refuting your arguments or standing with them. Let's try to leave out the name calling and stick with the facts

MY STANCE. I THOUGHT I MADE IT CLEAR, SORRY. I THINK WE ARE HEADED TOWARDS CATESTROPHY BECAUSE BIG MONEY OIL WANTS TO BLEED THE OIL FIELDS DRY BEFORE SERIOUSLY SUPPORTING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. WE DO NOT HAVE THE TIME, NOR THE LUXURY OF MILKING EVERY LAST CENT OF PROFIT OUT OF THE OIL FIELDS. AL GORE'S POSITION STATEMENTS, AND CONCLUSIONS IN HIS PRESENTATION AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH MAKE SENSE TO ME. AS FAR AS *NAME CALLING* IS CONCERNED, DO NOT PRESUME TO LECTURE ME. THIS FORUM IS A FARCE. THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY WILL TRY TO CONVINCE YOU THAT SECOND HAND SMOKE IS PART OF YOUR MINIMUM DAILY ALLOWANCE OF CARCINOGENS. PLEASE, WHO IS INSULTING WHOM HERE?

skeptical of all things political

I hear you, I just don't agree. Business people always talk about the faults of environmentalists, but business people are predictable too. They will solve problems, support ideas, and help their fellow man as long as there is profit in it. I look at it like there are problems in the world which need solving not because of profit, but just because it is the right thing to do. Bottom line. Life itself is not about just making money, and there are people in the world who treat life as such. People who support and are a part of Big Business and corporate management in the world are a differnt breed in my opinion. I have had experience in the corporate world, and know what happens behind closed doors. Business people just fight every effort to do things that might cost them more profit. example: Recently some states have proposed banning smoking in restaurants that have bars, but the owners do not want that to happen, because they say it could curtail their profits. They may be right, but for people who want to eat without being in an environment without cigarette smoke they support it. Personally I don't care, but here we are with what boils down to a health environment versus profit issue. I guess the war will go on between people who care about the environment, and people who may care about the environment, maybe not, but not above profit...

Karl:
To Dryice: While the population growth in most industrialized countries (like in Europe) is declining, the US population is in fact still increasing in growth. The world as a whole is increasing in its population growth. The biggest environmental challenge we face is the exponential growth of the human population (which attributes to all the other problems like global warming, the tragedy of the commons, etc). This is a simple fact that you would learn if you took any environmental science class.
YOU ARE TAKING MY STATEMENT COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT, AND I DO NOT CARE TO REPEAT MYSELF SO EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR POINT, THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE CLASS? CONGRATULATIONS. IN MY SCHOOL THAT IS WHERE STUDENTS WHO LACKED SCIENTIFIC CURIOSITY WERE PLACED.

Exxon hater:
Look up the facts. I did not say the ocean was a filter, but was a converter of CO2 emission just like the rain forest. Except the ocean's algae is 6 times more important than the rain forest in converting CO2. Please look up this fact in your high school science book.

PS I have to leave for 1.5 hrs will talk when I get back. Thanks to all for the spirited discussion.

To Dryice: While the population growth in most industrialized countries (like in Europe) is declining, the US population is in fact still increasing in growth. The world as a whole is increasing in its population growth. The biggest environmental challenge we face is the exponential growth of the human population (which attributes to all the other problems like global warming, the tragedy of the commons, etc). This is a simple fact that you would learn if you took any environmental science class.

To skepticalofallthingspolitical: Scientists are right, global warming could lead to an ice age. There is something called the ocean conveyor belt. If the ice melts near Greenland that would trigger a decrease in ocean salinity, causing the belt to come to a halt, thus stopping the transfer of heat. If you think this is based on just assumptions, you are wrong. This event occurred between the 1400s to 1800s called the little ice age.

Mr. Lomborg claims that going green means losing our own green. This is not the case. The U.S. economy is currently based on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, for which there are certain costs that are not necessary with a renewable energy economy. The primary energy is free...waste, wind, sun and ocean movement (Note: I disregard hydrogen as a practical alternative fuel. It is too often used as an excuse to not go green sooner. All the energy resources considered are of technologies that we have right now!) A great deal of inefficiency and waste is eliminated. There is no clean up required. There is no more need for welfare or giveaways to mature industries..to say nothing of polluting industries. There are no externalities to pay. The federal trade deficit is reduced considerably. The need for an electrical transmission grid is reduced considerably. The need for military involvement in energy acquisition and protection is eliminated, resulting in a stronger national defense. There is less government involvement and, therefore, less tax, less regulation and less government spending. There is greater opportunity for "free market" capitalism to flourish. In the end 6.5 million new jobs will be created. I highly encourage everyone to read the book "Energy Power Shift: Benefiting from Today's New Technologies" by Barry J. Hanson before anybody starts regurgitating falsities established by the energy companies.

One more thing. Mr. Lomborg claims that if we go green, other nations will be richer than America. Apparently he hasn't been looking at China. China will cast a shadow over America within two decades, with or without global warming (unless there is a worker rebellion in China, but I doubt it). Going green would fend off China for a little longer, if anything.

I understand that what I wrote got some people pretty excited, to the point that this seems to be getting out of hand. For the record, I've thought it proper to report to WP that the following comment was not from me

"Robert Rose:

Dry ice, what the hell are you crapping out of your mouth? Just one question, Do you belive that global warming is a problem or not? Talk about an idiot, it would take one to read the crap you have written. Go to your garage and get a shovel and get busy...."

February 1, 2007 6:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Roy,
That is because the human race may not be the initial cause of global warming, but I do believe we are definitely aggravating the problem. Ohter countries do play a big part in this, but we use the most fossil fuels(right now) by country, and thus produce the most green house gases....

Sorry, for all I was forgetting to put in my name so I have been posting the last three anonymous letters. So, please direct your comments to me.

Dear Exxon Hater,

You're either intentionally ignoring the point or somehow, I'm not being clear enough.

Corporations are not some sort of "thing"...they are merely a consortium of individuals. You can't "hurt" a corporation without "hurting" individuals.

The thing that has always annoyed me about "environmentalists" is that they tend to advertise the most dire consequences possible from the most dramatic (as in drama) interpretation of data. Then they act as if no other consequences count...and are out to skewer "big business" at any cost.

Frankly, I think astrophysics is playing the biggest role in global warming...but since you can't blame "big business" for orbital elongation, it's not a popular topic.

For the record, I'm an electric power engineer. I'm in private practice, i.e I am "small business" and have been for 26 years. Among other things, I am deeply involved in converting landfill gas into either a) electricity or b) natural gas...real projects not power point presentations or lab experiments. In other words, I'm engaged in the conservation/renewable end of the battle in a very real, nuts and bolts fashion. As such, I'm up close and personal with a lot of the consequences everyone else wants to discount.

Dryice,
What exactly is your stance. I am not sure if I should be refuting your arguments or standing with them. Let's try to leave out the name calling and stick with the facts.

Also, I am a big supporter of renewable fuels. I talk about the advantages of ethanol and bio-diesel to anyone that will listen. Not because of the false global warming argument, but because I am tired of high gas prices and to much money pouring into the middle east. I am wishing that wal-mart decides to start selling ethanol at all of their sam's gas stations. We need to diversify. Technological advances will allow for cellulositic ethanol to take over for gas soom.

Rose,
That was a horrible analogy because they said he would die in a year and he died in six months. That just proves that we make guesses that are not very good in a lot of phases of our lives.

I agree with anonymous, Who's thermometer are we using anyway?

To anonymous:

It is well known that the ocean and its contents are a filter, but to say that the tropical forests are not lungs of planet...I am sorry I disagree. I stated earlier that the volumes of green house gases and pollution in the past may not have overwhelmed the natural filters of the Earth. Not only are ice caps melting, but glacier national park is losing it's glacier. I suppose that in Switzerland they are covering their glaciers with tarps(last year) just for the exercise. I also guess that this has gotten so much attention because it does not exist, and people have nothing better to do. As far as your exerpt on a million dollars, and the un-wise act of going on a spending spree, that is exactly what we are doing with the environment. We are on a green house and pollution spending spree and expecting the Earth to be the account that pays the bill.

How is it that the "Scientific" community can't come to an agreement on which way the Earth is evolving and yet the news media grabs onto one particular item and runs with it as a scare mongering diatribe. Back in the 70's it was ozone and had a hole over the arctic that changed and fluctuated with the time of year. What ever happened to the hole? There have been floods and drought since the begining of time and there will always be the same amount of water on the planet just a matter of where it is distributed at a particular time and place. To think that man can have this kind of an effect on the planet is absurd. We have no "models" computerized or any other way that can tell us what will happen in the future. Another question, why is the USA always the culprit? With a population of 300mil. compared to the billion in China, billion in India and the hundreds of millions in other counties that still burn un-refined fuels.

Just wanted to bring to everyone's attention that some statistical connections are being made between global warming and sun activity which currently happens to be at a peak with a decline expected to start in 5-10 years. Did anyone else see that new data on that subject which I believe originated in Copenhagen? If true, it might help mitigate global warming if, at the same time, CO2 gas emissions are kept in check. Just so you know where I'm coming from, we're seeing the warmest winter on record here in Calgary, Alberta, Canada and it's got me a bit worried, especially when the extraction of oil from oilsands in the northern part of the province is spewing out an unbelievable amount of atmospheric warming gases.

Exxon hater:
Sorry, had to go home. But, now I am back. First, the rain forest is not the lungs of the earth. That is precisely what your factor actor/actress wants you to believe. In fact, sea algae converts 75% of all CO2 to O2. Also, if you look at the facts the ice caps in some areas are melting while in other areas they are growing.

Your argument about being on the safe side made me think. So, I sat here saying to myself that I had a million dollars. I did that for about 5 mins and then checked my bank account. To my dismay, I did not have a million dollars. Just because I say something long enough does not make it so. I could run computer models that say I will have a million dollars, but I don't think it would be wise to go on a spending spree. But I digress.

Lets look at just data for a minute. Here are increase in air temperature since 1820's-2000:

NYC 4.5 degrees
Albany, NY -.5 degrees
West point, NY no change

Temperatures since 1930's-2000

Death Valley, CA .5 degrees
Mcgill, NV -1 degree
Boulder, CO -.5 degree
Guthrie, OK -.5 degree
Truman, MO -2 degrees
Greenville, SC -1.5 degrees
Ann Arbor, MI -1 degree
Charleston, SC no change

DOES THAT SEEM LIKE GLOBAL WARMING TO ANYBODY?

Source: United States Historical Climatology Network

A a follow up, I do practice what I preach. I drive a vw diesel in which I use B20 bio-diesel that gets around 45 miles per gallon hwy, and the light bulbs in my home have all been changed from incandescent to the small twist flourescents(lower wattage same light), just as some examples.

"Wishing you all the best" WHAT THE HELL IS THAT? A TOAST TO DEATH? YOU ARE BRAIN DEAD ALREADY, FOOL!

skepticalofallthingspolitcal, with the kind of argument you put forward, I would not press my luck too much, if I were you. Here is a little story, *just for you*... A friend of mine was once told by doctors he would likely die of cancer within twelve months. AND YOUR POINT IS WHAT HERE, THAT PHYSICIANS DO NOT HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL? VERY GOOD GENIUS! He turned around and asked whether he'd be dead in two weeks. The doctors answered it was possible, but they could not tell *for sure*. RIGHT PHYSICIANS ARE NOT GODS. AGAIN, WHERE IS YOUR POINT BESIDE ON TOP OF YOUR FRIGGIN HEAD? Three weeks later, my friend was quite ill but still alive. He chose to believe he would still be alive in 12 months. "See, those guys cannot even predict whether I shall be alive or dead in two weeks, how could they possibly know I will be dead in twelve months? Those guys don't know what they're talking about...". Six months later, the poor man was dead. Final diagnostics: cancer. Wishing you all the best...WHAT A STUPID STORY THAT GOES NO FRIGGIN WHERE. YOU ARE A WASTE OF TIME AND SPACE. I AM QUITE CERTAIN THAT YOUR TEACHERS FELT THE SAME WAY.

To Big Business:

Life is full of sacrifice and consequences. The questions are who will sacrifice, and who will suffer those consequences? The article deals with what are the best ways to fight global warming? Everyone has an opinion, but the problem lies with this: neither individual nor corporation wants to be the "sacrificial" lamb. We have a "I don't care as long as it happens to the other guy" attitude. No-one wants to curtail business. Personally I hope people make as much money as they can, but if it requires some financial sacrifice on the front end with more responsibility to include adopting new technolgies, such as alternative fuels and enery production, especially by corporations, then so be it. Lets get it done.

I find it amusing that so many people want the government to solve global warming. How about you stop buying stuff from China a country that will continue to increase pollution as much as they can. Oh wait almost everything we buy in the US is made in China now. The fact is nobody is doing much to curb global warming. Unless you consider France and other countries in Europe going all nuclear and shutting down the fossil fuel power plants. Nuclear has it's own issues but certainly it's going to be needed regardless.

This guy is right on one thing. It's going to be technical advances that curb global warming in the long run. People get all worked up about global warming but how many of those people are doing anything themselves to cut their CO2 emmissions? Most people won't spend more to cut global warming. Just try to replace all those fossil fuel plants and see how many people go nuts when their electic bill goes through the roof. Then watch how many families end up losing their homes.

Renewable energy is great but again here it's going to take advances in technology. That's where the money needs to go.

I have been busy idiot. Cleaning out clap trap like yours in a forum that is supposed to be about faith you FOOL! You got nothing! Come on, what is your real beef? Like I said dumb a$$ who are you talking to? Yourself??